So, the U of U marketing folks deem the content of City Weekly objectionable [“Sold Out,” Private Eye, Aug. 23, City Weekly]? No offense intended, but when the Private Eye column doesn’t run, the commentary is milquetoast at best.
The Vanocur article [“Mitt, the Mormons & Me,” Aug. 16, City Weekly] was definitely “Church News” worthy. If not for the accompanying interview, it would have been one empty article.
As for the ads, have the marketers at the U clandestinely enacted some sort of advertising honor code? Or maybe with the team “down south” getting snubbed by the big boys, the U of U has aspirations of marketing itself in the Pac-12 as the team “up north,” what with the “Tin Man” running for president and all the accompanying Mormon hubbub. It could be a Utah marketer’s dream (or nightmare).
The local mantra is “go along to get along,” and one must speak nicely at all times these days. But there are always those in the local culture who find a self-righteous way to let others know they are outsiders, whether that outsider is a successful businessperson, a disposable employee or an unwashed vagrant. The outsider, his business, his points of view are unwelcome, unwanted, illegitimate.
Even still, that’s not something one would or should expect from marketers of a public institution of higher education. One has to wonder where they are taking their cue for “legitimate” from. Perhaps Todd Akin?
City Weekly adds to the community via internships and giving the unpopular and downtrodden a voice. It practices freedom of the press without the leash of religious dogma or party agenda.
All of which one would think that marketers of a public institution of higher learning would recognize and support, rather than shun. But then again, this is Utah.
South Salt Lake